Introduction
Revolution and turbulence had a lasting impact on 19th century European governments, societies, and religion. The Christian Church underwent a series of reforms in a response to these events. Several Christian movements were the result of these reforms. This article will focus on three of these Christian movements. These are the Dutch Reformed Church, the Prussian Union of Reformed and Lutheran Churches, and the Salvation Army of England. Dutch Reformed Church Martin Luther's nailing the 95 Theses on the Wittenberg church door started another stage in the Reformation. The Reformation spread throughout northern Europe through Luther's writings (including his translation of the Bible into the vernacular), including the Netherlands.[[#_edn1|[i]]] In 1529, Count Edzard introduced the Reformation to Netherlands.[[#_edn2|[ii]]] The last movement of the Reformation to come into the Netherlands was Calvinism.[[#_edn3|[iii]]] John Calvin, who published the Institutes, started Calvinism. With his preaching, a new movement resulted starting in Geneva.[[#_edn4|[iv]]]
Conventicles (two types: informal scripture study and shared testimony, and formal Bible study led by a lay-preacher) started around 1568.[[#_edn5|[v]]] They were formed to reform the population and church and opposed the church and preachers when they were not getting solid Biblical truths.[[#_edn6|[vi]]] As shown later, these were fundamental in the Réveil and the secessions.[[#_edn7|[vii]]]
The Synod of Dordrecht (1618-1619) in the Netherlands (attended by 26 representatives from Germanies, England, and Switzerland) resolved a conflict between remonstrants (i.e. Armenians) and contraremonstrants in Calvinism, by declaring the Armenians heretics. The Canons of Dordrecht were adopted and the 1586 church order was revised.[[#_edn8|[viii]]] A few fundamental articles were Article Four which stated that no person could become a minister without government approval and Article 37 which states for high ecclesiastical synods to convene, the government must approve.[[#_edn9|[ix]]] Thus, it was not until 1815 that the government agreed for another national synod to form. These Canons were a rebuttal to the Armenians and the five main points summed up in the acronym TULIP: Total depravity of mankind, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the Saints.[[#_edn10|[x]]] However, the government never approved the church order since it wanted more influence. Therefore, in the 1800s, the Synod of Dordrecht, including the church order, became a focal point of disagreement in the church between those arguing for returning to it, and those that wanted to get rid of it like they almost had, as well as what influence the government should have on the church.
The next synod was called by King Willem I of the Netherlands in 1815. However, he personally selected the synod.[[#_edn11|[xi]]] Little discussion was done, and the Reformed Church (Hervormde Kerk) was informed only afterwards in the Royal Decrees of January 1816.[[#_edn12|[xii]]] Part of this decree was church administrative revision. In this revision, the members of all the boards were appointed by the king.[[#_edn13|[xiii]]] Also, the oath for being a minister was revised in a way, some argued, to protect those denying the Trinity.[[#_edn14|[xiv]]] No weekly catechismal preaching and forcing ministers to include one or two hymns were also part of the decree. The Reformed Church also found itself under state control through the ministry of Religion. Though doctrine was not to be a state issue, it became a state issue.[[#_edn15|[xv]]] By the 1820's, the Enlightenment had influenced the Reformed Church. Some doctrines that were eliminated were: Reformed Confession, divinity of Christ, original atonement, and original sin.[[#_edn16|[xvi]]] In the case of the Reformed Confession, in 1819, Rev. Nicolaas Schotsman preached two sermons on the Canons of Dordrecht.[[#_edn17|[xvii]]] These were then printed and published and the sermons were attacked by critics.[[#_edn18|[xviii]]] Due to the decisions of the 1815 synod and the teaching of some of the ministers, conventicles again arose and took place in homes.[[#_edn19|[xix]]] The going back to the Canons and the attempt to return back to the original tenets of the Reformed Church was a result of the Réveil.
The Réveil or the religious revival started in Geneva around 1810, and quickly spread throughout Europe.[[#_edn20|[xx]]] The focus of the Réveil was the heart or a person’s personal relationship with Jesus Christ as well as a free church.[[#_edn21|[xxi]]] Most of its members were aristocrats, yet they focused on biblical studies and religious practices, while advocating for re-introduction of Reformed confessional writings.[[#_edn22|[xxii]]] They did not propose to break with the state church, but to reform it from the inside.[[#_edn23|[xxiii]]]
One of those affected by the Réveil was Jan Willem Vijgeboom. As early as 1816, he was writing against the church organizational structure.[[#_edn24|[xxiv]]] In 1820, he wrote another brochure against hymns and three years later led some of the people under him to secede and start the "Restored Church of Christ" and to abandon hymns and go to use of psalms only.[[#_edn25|[xxv]]] In 1824, he plead to the king for freedom of worship, since the 1814 Constitution guaranteed freedom of religion and all religious faiths could worship in public.[[#_edn26|[xxvi]]] The issues Vijgeboom cited were: (a) use of hymns as Dort only allowed the use of Psalms, (b) admitting non-reformed church members to Lord's Supper, and (c) about the four questions asked before communion as questions altered to undermine the authority of the Bible.[[#_edn27|[xxvii]]] The government responded by invoking Articles 291, 292, and 294 of the Napoleonic laws against them. These laws restricted how many people could gather, and if they violated, the range that fines could be assessed against them.[[#_edn28|[xxviii]]]
In 1824, Isaac da Costa (formerly Jewish, baptized in 1822) started practicing family worship.[[#_edn29|[xxix]]] By 1826, this had become Sunday night worship open to everyone and where major persons in the coming secession like H.P. Scholte and Anthony Brumelkamp attended.[[#_edn30|[xxx]]] Scholte, Brummelkamp, Albutus Christaan Van Raalte, Luois Bähler, Goerge Fracs Gazelle Meerburg, and Simon van Velzen met here and actually started their own group. Of this group, everyone except Luois Bähler was involved in the secession.[[#_edn31|[xxxi]]]
Henrik de Cock became minister in 1825, but it was not until 1831 that he became aware of Calvin's Institutes and the Canons of Dordrecht (Dort).[[#_edn32|[xxxii]]] After becoming aware of them and reading them, his sermons on them and drawn from orthodox Calvinism, drew crowds to the rural church in Ulrum.[[#_edn33|[xxxiii]]] In 1833, he published a brochure in defense of attacks by two colleagues that confession lists were old-fashioned and did not put Scripture first.[[#_edn34|[xxxiv]]] When de Cock baptized members from another congregation who came, among others, he was brought before the Classics, an oversight body of the church, and with no opportunity to rebut the accusations and was forbidden to preach.[[#_edn35|[xxxv]]]
When Scholte was forbidden to preach instead of de Cock (de Cock had invited him, but since de Cock was suspended, Scholte's coming to preach was violating church laws) and those believers that gathered were fined, the day after Scholte headed back to his congregation, on Oct. 13, 1833 de Cock told the Concillary that he planned to secede.[[#_edn36|[xxxvi]]] The Act of Secession that was written up which had three major points. The first was the near absence of church discipline as per Article 29 of Dordrecht. The next was that they had asked for judgment based on the Bible, but were rejected and therefore boards did not prove any heresies.[[#_edn37|[xxxvii]]] The third was that Scholte was forbidden to speak the Word, and believers who gathered were fined.[[#_edn38|[xxxviii]]] The Act of Secession was given to all secular and religious people in the various hierarchies and made known publically.[[#_edn39|[xxxix]]]
The state Church appealed to the government for help. Again, the government then housed troops in homes of secessionists.[[#_edn40|[xl]]] De Cock's home was turned into a command centre.[[#_edn41|[xli]]] However, by staying in the homes of the secessionists, who were from the lower class, it produced extreme hardship on these families to have to provide for the soldiers and the occasional raping done by the soldiers.[[#_edn42|[xlii]]] Many of the ministers (e.g. Van Raalte, Brummelkamp) also seceded and were deposed.[[#_edn43|[xliii]]] Though by 1837 quartering of soldiers was stopped, in 1839 no seceders jailed, and in 1840, soldiers stopped breaking up their meetings, famine in 1840 and persecution forced many to migrate to the United States (e.g. Scholte, Van Raalte).[[#_edn44|[xliv]]] The seceders in the Netherlands also faced economic boycotts, social ostracism (continued after 1840), and job blacklisting.[[#_edn45|[xlv]]] Many others opposed that part of the Réveil but still in the church. They also became disunited amongst themselves over baptism, church order, and clerical garment (use traditional clerical garments or abandon them).[[#_edn46|[xlvi]]] However, those like da Costa, still inside the state church, mourned the persecution and had a spiritual bond with the seceders and stayed in connection with them.[[#_edn47|[xlvii]]]
By the mid-1860s, the state church had continued to grow in number of modernists. The modernists believed that the Bible was a human book with expression of human faith, did critical biblical inquiry, and compared the gospels to folklore.[[#_edn48|[xlviii]]] In 1866, three ministers arranged that on Easter they stated there was no bodily resurrection of Christ.[[#_edn49|[xlix]]]
In the midst of this, in 1864, a "Confessional Union" was set up to reestablish confessional literature and to establish "gospel stations" in the churches where modernist ministers preached, as well as freedom of the church from the state.[[#_edn50|[l]]] In 1867 elections for deacons, elders, and the calling of preachers once again became congregational right. Many congregations, using electoral college voting, elected orthodox deacons, elders, and preachers instead of modernist ones.[[#_edn51|[li]]] However, in 1884, the church council of Amsterdam (one minister was Abraham Kuyper), refused to let public confession of modernist students who were candidates for confirmation. This meant that they could not become a member of the congregation. After appeals within the church boards, the church council lost, and those in the church council against liberal ministers were deposed.[[#_edn52|[lii]]] The result was the Doleantie (from dolerand, or regretfully) where people from the state church separated from their former congregation and established a new congregation in expression of their grief. But, they still stated they were under the state church, but not the boards.[[#_edn53|[liii]]]
A prominent, but divisive figure in the Doleantie was Abraham Kuyper, a minister who was also involved in politics. As one who was eventually deposed, he stated that if confessions were not taken seriously, cannot be a church.[[#_edn54|[liv]]] Thus when orthodox Reformed members like Phillipus Hoedemaker stayed within the state church, Kuyper was saddened that they did not break away.[[#_edn55|[lv]]] Kuyper, eventually, however, was one of the ministers that helped the two seceded churches to unite in 1892 to form the Reformed Church in the Netherlands.[[#_edn56|[lvi]]]
Philippus Hoedemaker originally supported Kuyper, but after Kuyper's secession, he viewed their leaving the state church as an easy way out. He continued to focus on reforming the state church from within. Ironically, his ideas for reforming the church from within were used, but in the 1900s.[[#_edn57|[lvii]]] Prussian Union Church
The union of the Reformed and Lutheran churches first began in the 1700’s with Frederick William I. The ruling house was Calvinist and Calvinist Pietists were the instructors of the royal children.[[#_edn58|[lviii]]] Frederick William I’s teacher was a French Huguenot named Philippe Rebeur who proposed the question of whether Frederick was a part of the elect. This caused Frederick so much internal torment that he forbade the teaching of Calvinist predestination to his children. He chose parts of Lutheranism and Calvinism to create his own brand of Lutheranism. He was a very “religious” man who believed that he would have to give an account to God for every action he performed and this led to him taking personal ownership of the government but he never became a tyrant.[[#_edn59|[lix]]] However, this merger of doctrines was more of a personal choice of Frederick William I and his successors up to Frederick William III. They did not try to force other Prussians to believe as they did.[[#_edn60|[lx]]] Since the reign of Frederick the Great, there had been religious freedom in Prussia. Prussian officials in the late 1700’s wanted to guard and maintain the autonomy and doctrinal orthodoxy of the confessional communities. In spite of his religious background as a Calvinist, Frederick the Great had been impartial to the various confessions in his realm. In 1781, when there was a conflict over a new type of hymnal he declared that, “anyone can believe what he wants, as long as he is honest…but the priests must not forget tolerance, for they will be forbidden any persecution.” On July 9, 1788, Frederick William II issued the “Edict of Religion” which declared that “the three main confessions of the Christian religion” were protected by the king. Yet there was no governmental provision allowing the government to interfere in church affairs. [[#_edn61|[lxi]]] Even the “General Code” of 1794 gave everyone the ability to act in “freedom of conscience”.[[#_edn62|[lxii]]] Religious tolerance was the order of the day until the reign of Frederick William III.
When Frederick William III assumed the throne, he worked swiftly to create a centralized governmental power. He also tried to “rebuild” Prussia into a respected nation again since the Napoleonic Wars had done much to reduce Prussian dominance in the region.[[#_edn63|[lxiii]]] He created a Permanent Ministerial Conference, a ministry of education, and even specific ministries, which would be for specific purposes and not divided by regions. Therefore, he worked to unify Prussia.[[#_edn64|[lxiv]]] In the midst of these reforms of unification, he tried to create a unified and cohesive religious body, which would be the mark by which Prussia would be seen as great, and the rest of Europe would respect them. As mentioned earlier, the ruling family was Calvinist with some Lutheran flavors. The majority of their subjects were Lutheran but the Napoleonic Wars had succeeded in bringing more Calvinists under Prussian authority.[[#_edn65|[lxv]]] On September 27, 1817, he ordered the Lutheran and Reformed (Calvinist) denominations to merge into one united protestant church. He viewed the two denominations as having no major differences and so it would be easy for them to merge.[[#_edn66|[lxvi]]] With this move, he strengthened the bond between church and state. He even had a new liturgy developed of which he was the primary author. It contained “scripts for every kind of service and comprehensive instructions about the disposition of altars, clerical dress, and the use of images and crucifixes inside churches.”[[#_edn67|[lxvii]]] The founding and enforcing of this new union occupied a large amount of time and political energy from 1815-1840. While developing economic and social reforms, Frederick William III played only a supporting role to these while his primary focus was his church merger.
By May 1825, of the 7,782 Protestant churches in Prussia, 5,343 had joined the union and were using the new liturgy.[[#_edn68|[lxviii]]] However, others refused to join since they viewed the merger as a threat to their religious heritage and theology. This group was primarily Lutherans. There had already been a series of divisions in the Lutheran Church over the embracing of Enlightenment ideas of Christianity being a “natural religion”.[[#_edn69|[lxix]]] As debates arose over the deity of Jesus Christ and other doctrines, the old doctrinal quarrels between the Lutherans and the Reformed Church were not as important. These quarrels intensified with the merger since the king commanded that clergy did not have to believe the tenants of the primary Confessions of both denominations in order to be ordained. Therefore, it was possible for clergy who did not believe the foundational tenants of the deity of Jesus, Jesus being the only way to salvation, salvation through faith alone, etc. to be leading congregations.
The Lutherans who were the most vehemently opposed to such reforms were later labeled the “Old Lutherans”. This group fought so viciously against the reforms and these issues. Out of the “Old Lutheran” camp, political groups began to sprout up all over Prussia and these strove to take the debates out of the universities and bring them to the public. They even strove to get the government to repress rival groups, labeling them as troublemakers. The government labeled those who refused to join the Union Church as dissenters and strove to repress them. They arrested clergy who refused to join as well as those political parties who did not approve of governmental initiatives. However, the freedom of religion laws, enacted by previous monarchs, stood in the way of full domination by the Crown. Therefore, the government arrested these people and held them on trumped up charges of disturbing the peace and sedition against the Crown. These actions just infuriated the king’s opponents even more and made things worse.[[#_edn70|[lxx]]]
By 1840, Prussian Lutherans were leaving Prussia to emigrate to Australia and the United States in order to escape the persecution that was taking place. The government tried to stop this exodus by creating laws by which those leaving had to have written permission to settle in their territory. When it obtained this, the government tried to place limits on how much money was needed to travel, thus keeping large quantities of the poor in Prussia.[[#_edn71|[lxxi]]] Still people fled the country by any means necessary. It was some of these “refugees” who created the Missouri and Buffalo synods in the United States.
When Frederick William IV assumed power after his father, his subjects rejoiced, thinking that he would bring in a new era. He had an affinity for Romantic literature (especially the medieval fantasies of Fouqué), architecture, and overabundant emotionalism.[[#_edn72|[lxxii]]] He also possessed a distain for constitutions, revolution, parliaments, and absolutism. He desired a new type of Christian State, which was organized on an “organic, corporative basis”.[[#_edn73|[lxxiii]]] He reinstated officials removed from their posts under his father’s reign. He even inducted the Brothers Grimm into the Prussian Academy of Sciences. These acts seemed to reveal him as a liberal and not a Pietist like his father. Yet when he gave speeches, they were longwinded with little political content and were more like sermons.[[#_edn74|[lxxiv]]] He believed that he possessed the throne due to the grace of God and even believed that God had given him supernatural powers that “put him intellectually and spiritually far above anyone else, even the highest official and closest confidant.”[[#_edn75|[lxxv]]] Therefore, when he had to make decisive decisions, he was inactive since he believed God would make the decisions for him. One of his first acts was to reinstate Catholic bishops removed from their posts by previous monarchs. Then, he stated that the Catholics and Protestants should unite and become one again.[[#_edn76|[lxxvi]]] He also stated that the union of the Lutheran and Reformed Churches was not doctrinal but administrative.[[#_edn77|[lxxvii]]] It appears that he moved away from the doctrinal emphasis of his father and focused primarily on the administration of the Prussian Union Church. He promised that Lutherans would no longer be persecuted but there was no concession of tolerance until 1846.[[#_edn78|[lxxviii]]]
In the process of these further reforms, his opponents began to push for constitutional reform. The people demanded a constitution for Prussia. At first, he refused. He did not want a piece of paper to get between him and the “divine right” of monarchy. He viewed a constitution as related to the French Revolution, which he vehemently hated. Pamphlets started printing pamphlets calling for further participation of the people in government affairs. One such publisher, a man named Johann Jacoby, received a sentence of two and a half years in jail for printing that the people’s participation was not a favor given to them by leaders, but a right they naturally possessed. He appealed his sentence and the Chamber Court acquitted him. These political pressures grew because of economic struggles made harsher by a series of bad harvests. The economic crisis shook Prussia violently and the people revolted. Frederick William IV was forced to give concessions as the result of the riot, which took place on March 1848.[[#_edn79|[lxxix]]] These concessions include lifting censorship, reconvening the United Diet, and introducing modern constitutional institutions.[[#_edn80|[lxxx]]]
These reforms led to people being able to have an active role in church affairs. The Union Church of Prussia remained the state church long after the reign of Frederick William IV. In 1884, a “Reformed Alliance” was created to preserve Reformed heritage.[[#_edn81|[lxxxi]]] The Reformed Church persisted through the early 20th century and stood against the racist Christianity supported by the Nazi regime. The Reformed Alliance and the Union Evangelical[[#_edn82|[lxxxii]]] Church still exist today.
The Army of Salvation and the Christian Revival of General William Booth
The latter half of the ninetieth century saw the rise of industrialization and the expansion of economies to a level that had never before been imagined. England in particular was at the forefront of this great charge and advancement of industrialism. For the most part, the industrialization of nations created the backdrop for the continuation of the modern world and was the springboard for their march into postmodern history. Unfortunately along with that glory and progress, it brought great suffering and destitution to thousands upon thousands of wage laborers.
It was from these contexts that the Salvation Army had its roots. Inspired by the Methodist traditions and practices used by prominent Methodist theologians and preachers, along with some variance and tweaking[[#_edn83|[lxxxiii]]] the Salvation Army brought salvation of spirit to the working class and tried to revive them from the depths of sin. Through their diligence and hard work, the missionary work of the Salvationists eventually reached the people of England, and within less than a generation of Booth starting his work, had reached every inhabited continent in the world[[#_edn84|[lxxxiv]]].
The Army had its origins with William Booth and his wife Catharine. William and Catherine shaped their mission by “synthesizing” various aspects and methods of different revivalists whom they met throughout their lives. These even included a couple of American revivalists by the name of Charles Finney, James Caughey and Phoebe Palmer[[#_edn85|[lxxxv]]].
William Booth was not by any means a trained clergyman for the established church. He only had around six months of formal training. It is stated that he actually had an aversion to formal ministerial education and held the idea with suspicion. To supplement for his academic deficiencies, his wife Catherine spent much time informally training herself in religious doctrine and theology. As far as their actual ministerial approaches, they incorporated methods used by the American revivalists that were mentioned above. They viewed this idea as a methodology that was “scientific” and overall was considered the “American Method”. Confession of sins, penitent communion, mass preaching, mass “specific” prayer, and the training of converts to win others were some of the means the Booths mobilized the beginnings of their Army[[#_edn86|[lxxxvi]]].
The theology of the eventual Salvation Army was that of a Wesleyan approach. One monograph mentioned that it was a medium between Calvinist predestination and 19th century transcendentalism and “free thought”[[#_edn87|[lxxxvii]]]. To the Booths, idea of Calvinist predestination theology was inconceivable and “abhorrent”[[#_edn88|[lxxxviii]]]. Their Wesleyan theology, at least in part, was that of “instantaneous deliverance. This was the idea that deliverance occurred as soon as Christ was accepted by the person in question”[[#_edn89|[lxxxix]]]. Also they believed that salvation was free for all people and that one could be saved from sin. Along with absolution of sin, they specifically stated the “Trustworthiness of the Bible vehemently acknowledge the holy trinity[[#_edn90|[xc]]]. These are closely related to the primary tenets of the Salvation Army today[[#_edn91|[xci]]].
The idea of absolution of sin carried into an idea of clean spiritual living. When members of the mission that was to become the Salvation Army, they adopted values of this sort. As a result of being converted, the convert was then endowed with Purity and Power. This translated into an idea of whole sanctification[[#_edn92|[xcii]]]. This particular holiness was a part of the doctrines of the mission. Officially this doctrine along with several others was adopted in 1870 and became some of the fundamental institutions of the mission and later Army[[#_edn93|[xciii]]].
For the Booths and their project, the idea of holiness and the elimination of sin was a foundational element. A person is to want to be holy on their own free will. “A believer must first be convinced that sin is hateful and must desire holiness. The believer must then renounce evil and consecrate herself and all that she possesses to God, having faith that Christ’s blood cleanses her from all sin. The Booths believed that entire sanctification was an absolute necessity for a Christian life and the only assurance of heaven.”[[#_edn94|[xciv]]]
The Booths began their work once they moved to London. In particular, they established an urban mission that focused on saving souls of the working class of East London in particular. They primarily used rented halls to hold their meetings and perform their salvation work. There were several stations that sprang up over the first years of the mission’s life. The first significant station was Whitechapel. As Whitechapel rose, he received requests to form other stations in Bethnal Green, Limehouls, Poplar, and Canning town. It was said that Booth would be happy to do all of that as long as he had the facilities to do what he needed[[#_edn95|[xcv]]].
East London was of particular concern to the Booths and other evangelicals as far as their mission was concerned. People regarded East London as a “dangerously neglected mission field”. There is poverty that is described as intense. Women were forced into “shame and misery” and the children were growing up “without knowledge of their Maker.”[[#_edn96|[xcvi]]]
In general, the Booth’s preaching was done in rented halls and anywhere he could find or rent a space[[#_edn97|[xcvii]]]. Often in these halls it was not William Booth who preached but his wife Catharine, although not often in “East End”[[#_edn98|[xcviii]]]. If not only unique, she was quite popular. At that time it was considered scandalous for a woman to be preaching equal to men. For being “scandalous”, she did receive ridicule for her abilities, and there were those who questioned whether a mother, as Catherine was, should be attending to her duties instead[[#_edn99|[xcix]]].
The future general himself was also concerned with the continuance of his mission that he created. Slowly but surely, the mission became more self sufficient and then began to spread beyond its foundational boundaries, with much of the effort coming from the lay ministers. Booth’s mission also absorbed other missions around the area, but the primary fruits came from the lay leadership and their expanding reach[[#_edn100|[c]]]. Within for years, Booth is said to have had “140 weekly services and four thousand inquirers seeking salvation since 1865.”[[#_edn101|[ci]]] Unfortunately these numbers were not representative of the actual numbers that were becoming evangelized. These figures were only less than ten percent of those that attended. Nevertheless, Booth continued to expand his reach opening more mission station, having sermons preached in fields, even having some of his ministers preaching on excursion trains[[#_edn102|[cii]]]. Whether or not people were truly being saved, Booth always had trouble finding places that could accommodate those who were coming[[#_edn103|[ciii]]]. Unfortunately for all his gains, there was far more that he was losing. As far as his revivalism went, his mission did not accomplish much of what he actually wanted to do. Part of the reason for this is what Booth termed as heathenism. For the most part, the people that he was trying to reach did not want to be revived. For these people, if they could take advantage of generosity, they would. However, overall, they were not a unified class and they seemed to be fairly content in the situation that they were it[[#_edn104|[civ]]]. Booth still believed that in aggressive Christianity to stem the flood of “alien ideology” etc but revivalism in itself was not working to the degree Booth wanted it. Booth was performing his mission work during the later part of the 19th century in England. The air of English imperialism and military structure was all around him, thanks to Queen Victoria. To keep with the times, so to speak, he reorganized his mission with a military structure between the years 1877-79[[#_edn105|[cv]]]. It was at this point that William Booth became General William Booth of the Salvation Army. One of the things that helped perpetuate the notion of military structure was his use of “Hallelujah Bands”[[#_edn106|[cvi]]] Later, officially an army; they instituted drills as a pastime and to a respectful degree were able to mix classes[[#_edn107|[cvii]]]. By 1879, General Booth’s restructuring was complete and his now officially termed “Salvation Army” had truly captured the spirit of British militarist support. With all of its military fervor, Booth’s army marched out to “invade” the slums of the city and spread around the world to deliver “muscular Christianity” in a metaphor truly exemplified by those who were part of the Army of Salvation[[#_edn108|[cviii]]].
General Booth was in an excellent position to see all the suffering and wretched conditions that were plaguing the working class Londoners. In 1890 he published a manifesto that illustrated the problems of the lower classes and tried to propose a solution to it. His manifesto is entitled In Darkest England and The Way Out. In this work he is taking on a much greater role as a social reformist rather than a mission evangelist. He does not abandon the Salvationist underpinnings but it has a more societal focus rather than revivalist.
The first thing he does is makes a comparison to Stanley’s “Darkest Africa” in relation to exploitations, class struggles, and the “innumerable adverse conditions which doom the dweller in Darkest England to eternal and immutable misery”[[#_edn109|[cix]]]. He provides what he calls “Ghastly Figures” which gives the number of people that are starving, very poor, homeless, etc[[#_edn110|[cx]]]. While everything looks lamentable, in his manifesto he lays out excellent guidelines, seven in particular, for which to combat this infectious problem. These he calls essential to success[[#_edn111|[cxi]]].
Through their modes and methods the Salvation Army reached thousands upon thousands of poor, destitute, miserable people living in indescribable conditions. For Booth, the conditions of industrialization had created a society that he felt needed to be dealt with. First he worked to save their souls, and then he worked to save their lives and conditions, while still maintaining Divine purpose. While the revival of souls from the depths of sin was not accomplished to the degree that Booth intended, the mission and later Army did bring many to God and Christ on an individual basis. The lasting influence of the Salvation Army’s work must not be understated, both then and now. Even today, for both social relief and soul salvation the Salvation Army is still marching to glory. Conclusion
The first movement discussed is the Dutch Reformed Church. Beginning as a European wide agitation for increased personal relationship as well as a free church unhindered by state interference, multiple secessions within the state Reformed Church took place in the 19th century. Many of the 1834 secessionists emigrated to the US in the later 1840’s founding towns such as Sheboygan, Wisconsin. These series of reforms demonstrates the interplay of church reform and government action with or against the secessionists.
The second movement analyzed is the Prussian Union Church. Here, the political and governmental influences created a church by trying to combine two denominations, Calvinist Reformed and Lutheran. The church was under the thumb of the authoritarian powers. Even going as far as writing liturgy for the merged church, the Prussian Union Church is a prime example of state control over church doctrine.
The third movement of interest is the Salvation Army of General. William and Catherine Booth. This illustrates the kind of free evangelism and mission work that was arising in England. The Salvation Army showed the response by a few driven individuals who strove to improve the spiritual and social situation of those victimized by the industrial juggernaut and ignored by government and religious organizations.
By the use of these three examples, we can see the next evolution of church and state interaction. These interactions resulted in the development of new free denominations not hindered by state control. There is also a rise in revivalist methods in a spirit of unrestrained evangelism, like that of the Salvation Army, that preached to the lower class and those abandoned by the established organizations.
Notes
[[#_ednref|[i]]] Richard De Ridder. "The development of the mission order of the Christian Reformed Church" (Master's thesis, Hartford Seminary Foundation, 1956), 2. [[#_ednref|[ii]]] De Ridder, 2. [[#_ednref|[iii]]] De Ridder, 3. [[#_ednref|[iv]]] Karel Blei, The Netherlands Reformed Church, 1571-2005. Translated by Allan J. Jannsen (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformed Church Press, 2006), 10. [[#_ednref|[v]]] Eric Kampen, "The Secession from the Netherlands Reformed Church in 1834: An Internal Part of the Dutch Reveil" (Master's thesis, Regent College, 2004), 17. [[#_ednref|[vi]]] Kampen, 18. [[#_ednref|[vii]]] Kampen, 41. It is interesting to note, that the same discussion and points were being debated in the United States in the Reformed Churches in the 1820s. In response to the synod in 1822, it was stated discipline had been neglected (including excommunication), hopelessness of reformation, those that are orthodox are slandered, baptism of children of unbelievers who do not understand baptism, judicatories are made up of ignorant men, young clergy at General Synod 1820 advocated Armenianism, that Methodist preachers are allowed to preach, and that the general convention rejected a call to define and explain doctrine of Dutch Reformed. It also uses Heidelsburg Confession, especially Article 29 (true versus false church). Thus, ministers in Oct. 22, 1822 Mongomery Classis drew up this draft of secession to establish the True Reformed Dutch Church in the USA (H.V. Wyckoff, “A Brief history of the True Reformed Protestant Dutch Church,” Banner of Truth, September 1869. Microfilm.). It is interesting that all research the various authors regarding the secessions in the Netherlands, none have expressedly noted this. Thus, did the preachers in the United States communicate with those in the Netherlands? If so, what significance did this have on the secessions in the Netherlands? Further research is needed on this. [[#_ednref|[viii]]] Blei, 31; De Ridder, 4. [[#_ednref|[ix]]] De Ridder, 4-5. [[#_ednref|[x]]] John W. Beardslee III. Reformed Dogmatics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965), 23-24. [[#_ednref|[xi]]] Robert P. Sweirenga and Elton J. Bruins. Family Quarrels in the Dutch Reformed Churches in the 19th Century, no. 32 of The Historical Series of the Reformed Church in the America (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1999), 10. [[#_ednref|[xii]]] Blei, 56; Sweirenga and Bruins, 1. [[#_ednref|[xiii]]] Blei, 57. [[#_ednref|[xiv]]] Sweirenga and Bruins,14. The word changing was from the articles of faith of the three Reformed confessional writings “agreed in everything with God’s Word” to “all the doctrines, that, in conformity with the Word of God, were contained in the said creed.” (Blei, 61; De Ridder, 7). Also, ministers had too promise by signing that, originally, they “will diligently teach and faithfully advocate” the doctrine to “the doctrine which, in agreement with God’s Holy Word, is contained in the accepted formulae of unity of the Netherlands Reformed Church (Blei, 62).” So the question became what does “in agreement with God’s Holy Word” mean? (Blei, 62). For continuation, see page 62-63 of The Netherlands Reformed Church, 1571-2005.
The Trinity is the doctrine of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The three are separate persons with different characteristics, yet one. The three, also act as one in what they think. The Westminister Confession outlines this. Also, see John 5:18, 16:14; 1 Corinthians 2:10f; Genesis 2:24; Mathew 28:19 [[#_ednref|[xv]]] Kampen, 21. [[#_ednref|[xvi]]] Kampen, 36. [[#_ednref|[xvii]]] Sweirenga and Bruins, 14. [[#_ednref|[xviii]]] Kampen, 23. [[#_ednref|[xix]]] Sweirenga and Bruins, 13. [[#_ednref|[xx]]] Sweirenga and Bruins, 14. [[#_ednref|[xxi]]] Sweirenga and Bruins, 16. De Ridder, 8. [[#_ednref|[xxii]]] Kampen, 66. [[#_ednref|[xxiii]]] Kampen, 67. [[#_ednref|[xxiv]]] Kampen, 30. [[#_ednref|[xxv]]] Kampen, 30. [[#_ednref|[xxvi]]] Kampen, 30; Sweirenga and Bruins, 24. [[#_ednref|[xxvii]]] Kapmen, 31-31, note 44 on page 30. [[#_ednref|[xxviii]]] Kampen 31. [[#_ednref|[xxix]]] Kampen, 41. [[#_ednref|[xxx]]] Kampen, 41. [[#_ednref|[xxxi]]] Kampen, 53-54. [[#_ednref|[xxxii]]] Kampen, 56. [[#_ednref|[xxxiii]]] Blei, 64. [[#_ednref|[xxxiv]]] Kampen, 64-66. End note source name. [[#_ednref|[xxxv]]] Kampen, 64-67. The new “boards” from highest to lowest were: synod of entire church, provincial, classical, and concillary or church council. (Blei, 57). [[#_ednref|[xxxvi]]] Kampen, 79. [[#_ednref|[xxxvii]]] Kampen, 80. See note seven also concerning concerns towards the U.S. Dutch Reformed Church. All major points by de Cock were iterated 12 years previously in the U.S. [[#_ednref|[xxxviii]]] Kampen, 81. [[#_ednref|[xxxix]]] Kampen, 81. [[#_ednref|[xl]]] Kampen, 82. [[#_ednref|[xli]]] Kampen, 82. [[#_ednref|[xlii]]] Kampen, 82, 90. [[#_ednref|[xliii]]] Kampen, 85-88. [[#_ednref|[xliv]]] Sweirenga and Bruins, 26. On seven of the book, it has a table of the number emigrating. It peaked in 1847 with 3,223 of Afscheiding Kerk emigrating compared with 835 from Hervormde Kerke (state church). They established Sheboygan (WI), Holland and Zeeland (MI), Pella (IA), and South Holland (IL) (Sweirenga and Bruins, 6). [[#_ednref|[xlv]]] Sweirenga and Bruins, 27. [[#_ednref|[xlvi]]] Kampen, 95, 115 note 35; Sweirenga and Bruins, 27-30. [[#_ednref|[xlvii]]] Kampen, 105-107. [[#_ednref|[xlviii]]] Blei, 68. [[#_ednref|[xlix]]] Blei, 69. [[#_ednref|[l]]] Blei, 71. [[#_ednref|[li]]] Blei, 71. [[#_ednref|[lii]]] Blei, 77. [[#_ednref|[liii]]] Blei, 73. [[#_ednref|[liv]]] Blei, 72-73. [[#_ednref|[lv]]] Blei, 77. [[#_ednref|[lvi]]] Blei 75. [[#_ednref|[lvii]]] Blei, 77-80, 90. [[#_ednref|[lviii]]] Koch, H.W., A History of Prussia, (London: Longman Group Limited, 1978), 78. [[#_ednref|[lix]]] Koch, 80. However, according to Fraser, David, Frederick The Great, (New York: Fromm International, 2001), 8, Frederick William I was a violent tempered man who was according to his son, “a terrible man but a just man”. [[#_ednref|[lx]]] Koch, H.W., A History of Prussia, 82, [[#_ednref|[lxi]]] This paragraph is based on Clark, Christopher, “Confessional Policy and the Limits of State Action: Frederick William III and the Prussian Church Union 1917-40, The Historical Journal, Col. 39, No. 4, (Dec., 1996), 995. [[#_ednref|[lxii]]] Clark, 1002. [[#_ednref|[lxiii]]] Britannica, “Lutheranism”. [[#_ednref|[lxiv]]] Koch, 163-187. [[#_ednref|[lxv]]] Britannica, “Lutheranism”. [[#_ednref|[lxvi]]] Clark, 985. [[#_ednref|[lxvii]]] Clark, 986. [[#_ednref|[lxviii]]] Clark, 989. [[#_ednref|[lxix]]] Britannica, “Lutheranism”. [[#_ednref|[lxx]]] Clark, 989-1004. [[#_ednref|[lxxi]]] Clark, 997-1000. [[#_ednref|[lxxii]]] Barclay, David, “Frederick William IV, King of Prussia”, Encyclopedia of 1848 Revolutions, http://www.ohio.edu/chastain/dh/fred.htm. [[#_ednref|[lxxiii]]] Barclay, “Frederick William IV”. [[#_ednref|[lxxiv]]] Koch, 227. [[#_ednref|[lxxv]]] Koch, 227-228. [[#_ednref|[lxxvi]]] Koch, 228. [[#_ednref|[lxxvii]]] Britannica, “Lutheranism”. [[#_ednref|[lxxviii]]] Gerber , David A., “The Pathos of Exile: Old Lutheran Refugees in the United States and South Australia, Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Jul., 1984), 498-522. [[#_ednref|[lxxix]]] This paragraph is based on Koch, 229-247. [[#_ednref|[lxxx]]] Barclay, “Frederick William IV”. [[#_ednref|[lxxxi]]]Stillwell, John Colin, “Reformed and Presbyterian Churches (Christianity)”, Encyclopedia Britannica, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/475062/Presbyterian-churches#. [[#_ednref|[lxxxii]]]Stillwell, “Reformed and Presbyterian Churches”. [[#_ednref|[lxxxiii]]] Walker, Pamela, Pulling the Devil’s Kingdom Down: The Salvation Army in Victorian Britain (University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles 2001) pg 44 [[#_ednref|[lxxxiv]]]Gassner, Karl Heinz, Salvation Army, in, The Encyclopedia of Christianity Vol 4 Fahlbusch, Lochman, and Mbiti eds., English ed. and trans., Geoffrey Bromiley (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Grand Rapids MI 2005) pg 831-832 [[#_ednref|[lxxxv]]] Murdoch, Norman H Origins of the Salvation Army, (University of Tenn, Knoxville, 1994) Pg xi, 1 [[#_ednref|[lxxxvi]]] Murdoch, Norman H Origins of the Salvation Army pg 1-2 [[#_ednref|[lxxxvii]]] Murdoch, Norman H Origins of the Salvation Army pg 2 [[#_ednref|[lxxxviii]]] Murdoch, Norman H Origins of the Salvation Army pg 2 [[#_ednref|[lxxxix]]] Hattersley, Roy, Blood and Fire: William and Catherine Booth and Their Salvation Army (Random House Inc, New York 1999) pg 20 [[#_ednref|[xc]]] Murdoch, Norman H Origins of the Salvation Army pg 2 [[#_ednref|[xci]]] Salvation Army: What We Believe http: www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn/www_usn_2.nsf/vw-dynamic-index/CE33D354A0544F368025732500314AF5?Opendocument (Accessed NOV 23 2009) [[#_ednref|[xcii]]] Murdoch, Norman H Origins of the Salvation Army pg 2 [[#_ednref|[xciii]]] Walker, Pamela, Pulling the Devil’s Kingdom Down pg 53 [[#_ednref|[xciv]]] Walker, Pamela, Pulling the Devil’s Kingdom Down pg 54 [[#_ednref|[xcv]]] Murdoch, Norman H Origins of the Salvation Army pg 50 [[#_ednref|[xcvi]]] Walker, Pamela, Pulling the Devil’s Kingdom Down pg 96 [[#_ednref|[xcvii]]] Murdoch, Norman H Origins of the Salvation Army pg 50-51 [[#_ednref|[xcviii]]] Murdoch, Norman H Origins of the Salvation Army pg 56 [[#_ednref|[xcix]]] Hattersley, Roy, Blood and Fire pg146-148 [[#_ednref|[c]]] Murdoch, Norman H Origins of the Salvation Army pg 52 [[#_ednref|[ci]]] Murdoch, Norman H Origins of the Salvation Army pg 53 [[#_ednref|[cii]]] Murdoch, Norman H Origins of the Salvation Army pg 53 [[#_ednref|[ciii]]] Murdoch, Norman H Origins of the Salvation Army pg 55 [[#_ednref|[civ]]] Murdoch, Norman H Origins of the Salvation Army pg 77 [[#_ednref|[cv]]] Murdoch, Norman H Origins of the Salvation Army pg 88-89 [[#_ednref|[cvi]]] Murdoch, Norman H Origins of the Salvation Army pg 92 [[#_ednref|[cvii]]] Murdoch, Norman H Origins of the Salvation Army pg 103 [[#_ednref|[cviii]]] Murdoch, Norman H Origins of the Salvation Army pg 101-103 [[#_ednref|[cix]]] Booth, General, In Darkest England and the Way Out (Mccorquodale and Co., Limited, London) pg 12 [[#_ednref|[cx]]] Booth, General, In Darkest England pg 21 [[#_ednref|[cxi]]] Booth, General, In Darkest England pg 85-89
Annotated Bibliography
Barclay, David, “Frederick William IV, King of Prussia”. Encyclopedia Britannica, http://www.ohio.edu/chastain/dh/fred.htm.
This article talks about the reign of King Frederick William IV and what he accomplished.
Beardslee III, John W. Reformed Dogmatics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1965.
This source helped solidify what the Reformed Doctrine was, so as to understand the essentials of Calvanism.
Blei, Karel. The Netherlands Reformed Church, 1571-2005. Translated by Allan J. Jannsen.
Grand Rapids, MI: Reformed Church Press, 2006.
The book has a thorough background of the major figures in the Réveil, the Synod of Dordrecht, and the secessions.
Booth, General, In Darkest England and the Way Out. McCorquodale and Co., Limited, London.
(No date of publication available).
This book is the very words of Gen Booth. In it he describes how to fix the outright destitution of London. Therefore, this was an important primary source.
Clark, Christopher, “Confessional Policy and the Limits of State Action: Frederick William III
and the Prussian Church Union 1917-40, The Historical Journal, Col. 39, No. 4, (Dec.,
1996), 985-1004.
This article talks about the events leading up to Frederick William III’s command for the merger of the Reformed and Lutheran Churches and how the Lutherans in particular responded to the merger. Also, it talks about how his reforms were not as far reaching and permanent as he had hoped since they caused more strife than unity.
De Ridder, Richard. "The development of the mission order of the Christian Reformed Church."
Master's thesis, Hartford Seminary Foundation, 1956.
Originally, thought the mission order of the CRC would be regarding the Netherlands church. However, has a historical review of the state church in the Netherlands from the 1500s to the 1834 split, headed by de Cock.
Fraser, David, Frederick The Great. New York: Fromm International, 2001.
This monograph discusses the life of Frederick the Great and how he carried on and expounded on the policies of his father, Frederick William I. Frederick the Great’s reign continued the move toward the complete merger of the Reformed and Lutheran Churches by Frederick William III and IV.
Gassner, Karl Heinz, Salvation Army, in, The Encyclopedia of Christianity Vol 4 Fahlbusch,
Lochman, and Mbiti eds., English ed. and trans., Geoffrey Bromiley. William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co. Grand Rapids MI 2005.
This gentleman provided the springboard to greater study and provided an excellent resource list.
Gerber , David A., “The Pathos of Exile: Old Lutheran Refugees in the United States and South
Australia, Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Jul., 1984), 498-522.
This article discusses the exile of the “Old Lutherans” from Prussia to the United States and South Australia. It talks about leaders among the exiled groups and reasons for exile.
Hattersley, Roy, Blood and Fire: William and Catherine Booth and Their Salvation Army. Random House Inc, New York 1999.
This was a well written and easy to follow biography of the Salvation Army founder and his family. This gave background on their lives and beliefs.
Kampen, Eric "The Secession from the Netherlands Reformed Church in 1834: An Internal Part
of the Dutch Reveil." Master's thesis, Regent College, 2004.
Details more in-depth the effect the Enlightenment had on the Reformed Church, as well the conventicles. Its focus on the 1834 secession, using various primary sources that were in Dutch helped gain an understanding of the reasons for the secession.
Lamberti, Marjorie, “Lutheran Orthodoxy and the Beginning of Conservative Party Organization
in Prussia”, Church History, Vol. 37, No. 4 (Dec., 1968), 439-453.
This article outlines how the Lutherans in Prussia formed into political groups in order to try to counteract the reforms headed by the government as well as doctrinal debates which were occurring in 19th century Prussia.
Murdoch, Norman H Origins of the Salvation Army. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 1994.
By far the most cited this author provided the best comprehensive history of the origins, methods, and structuring of the Salvation Army.
Scharlemann, Robert P.,“Friederich Schleiermacher”, Encyclopedia Britannica, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/527577/Friedrich-Schleiermacher#.
This article discusses the German theologian Friederich Schleiermacher who promoted the religious changes that Frederick William II was enacting and later clashed with the monarchy because he saw the state interfering too much in church affairs.
Schenkel, Daniel, “The German Protestant Association” (1868) in Volume 3. Vormärz to Prussian Dominance, 1815-1866, http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cfm?document_id=457.
This excerpt outlines the liberal Protestants’ efforts to reconcile the extremes of rationalist humanism and religious revivalism as they tried to reform the Protestant church in a way that would fit their changing culture.
Stillwell, John Colin, “Reformed and Presbyterian Churches (Christianity)”, Encyclopedia Britannica, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/475062/Presbyterian-churches#.
This article is a survey of the Reformed and Presbyterian movements in various parts of Europe.
Sweirenga, Robert P. and Elton J. Bruins. Family Quarrels in the Dutch Reformed Churches in the 19th Century, no. 32 of The Historical Series of the Reformed Church in the America.
Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1999.
Details the governmental response to the state church’s plea for state help in represent the secessionists, as well as details about the schisms among the secessionists after the 1834 secession. Also, the book does a brief history starting around 1815 and King Willem I of Netherlands.
Walker, Pamela, Pulling the Devil’s Kingdom Down: The Salvation Army in Victorian Britain.
University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles 2001.
This book was decent for various details regarding some of the mission’s methods, but it was too focused to be of much use.
Wyckoff, H.V. “A Brief history of the True Reformed Protestant Dutch Church,” Banner of Truth, September 1869. Microfilm.
Initially sought out regarding church in the Netherlands. However, the similarities of the reformation and act of secession in the United States 12 years before the 1834 secession in the Netherlands state church, though nothing was mentioned in the other sources made it noteworthy and maybe will inspire research as to what connections between ministers in the U.S. and the Netherlands had and what influence the 1822 secession from Montgomery Classis had on the 1834 secession.
Revolution and turbulence had a lasting impact on 19th century European governments, societies, and religion. The Christian Church underwent a series of reforms in a response to these events. Several Christian movements were the result of these reforms. This article will focus on three of these Christian movements. These are the Dutch Reformed Church, the Prussian Union of Reformed and Lutheran Churches, and the Salvation Army of England.
Dutch Reformed Church
Martin Luther's nailing the 95 Theses on the Wittenberg church door started another stage in the Reformation. The Reformation spread throughout northern Europe through Luther's writings (including his translation of the Bible into the vernacular), including the Netherlands.[[#_edn1|[i]]] In 1529, Count Edzard introduced the Reformation to Netherlands.[[#_edn2|[ii]]] The last movement of the Reformation to come into the Netherlands was Calvinism.[[#_edn3|[iii]]] John Calvin, who published the Institutes, started Calvinism. With his preaching, a new movement resulted starting in Geneva.[[#_edn4|[iv]]]
Conventicles (two types: informal scripture study and shared testimony, and formal Bible study led by a lay-preacher) started around 1568.[[#_edn5|[v]]] They were formed to reform the population and church and opposed the church and preachers when they were not getting solid Biblical truths.[[#_edn6|[vi]]] As shown later, these were fundamental in the Réveil and the secessions.[[#_edn7|[vii]]]
The Synod of Dordrecht (1618-1619) in the Netherlands (attended by 26 representatives from Germanies, England, and Switzerland) resolved a conflict between remonstrants (i.e. Armenians) and contraremonstrants in Calvinism, by declaring the Armenians heretics. The Canons of Dordrecht were adopted and the 1586 church order was revised.[[#_edn8|[viii]]] A few fundamental articles were Article Four which stated that no person could become a minister without government approval and Article 37 which states for high ecclesiastical synods to convene, the government must approve.[[#_edn9|[ix]]] Thus, it was not until 1815 that the government agreed for another national synod to form. These Canons were a rebuttal to the Armenians and the five main points summed up in the acronym TULIP: Total depravity of mankind, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the Saints.[[#_edn10|[x]]] However, the government never approved the church order since it wanted more influence. Therefore, in the 1800s, the Synod of Dordrecht, including the church order, became a focal point of disagreement in the church between those arguing for returning to it, and those that wanted to get rid of it like they almost had, as well as what influence the government should have on the church.
The next synod was called by King Willem I of the Netherlands in 1815. However, he personally selected the synod.[[#_edn11|[xi]]] Little discussion was done, and the Reformed Church (Hervormde Kerk) was informed only afterwards in the Royal Decrees of January 1816.[[#_edn12|[xii]]] Part of this decree was church administrative revision. In this revision, the members of all the boards were appointed by the king.[[#_edn13|[xiii]]] Also, the oath for being a minister was revised in a way, some argued, to protect those denying the Trinity.[[#_edn14|[xiv]]] No weekly catechismal preaching and forcing ministers to include one or two hymns were also part of the decree. The Reformed Church also found itself under state control through the ministry of Religion. Though doctrine was not to be a state issue, it became a state issue.[[#_edn15|[xv]]]
By the 1820's, the Enlightenment had influenced the Reformed Church. Some doctrines that were eliminated were: Reformed Confession, divinity of Christ, original atonement, and original sin.[[#_edn16|[xvi]]] In the case of the Reformed Confession, in 1819, Rev. Nicolaas Schotsman preached two sermons on the Canons of Dordrecht.[[#_edn17|[xvii]]] These were then printed and published and the sermons were attacked by critics.[[#_edn18|[xviii]]] Due to the decisions of the 1815 synod and the teaching of some of the ministers, conventicles again arose and took place in homes.[[#_edn19|[xix]]] The going back to the Canons and the attempt to return back to the original tenets of the Reformed Church was a result of the Réveil.
The Réveil or the religious revival started in Geneva around 1810, and quickly spread throughout Europe.[[#_edn20|[xx]]] The focus of the Réveil was the heart or a person’s personal relationship with Jesus Christ as well as a free church.[[#_edn21|[xxi]]] Most of its members were aristocrats, yet they focused on biblical studies and religious practices, while advocating for re-introduction of Reformed confessional writings.[[#_edn22|[xxii]]] They did not propose to break with the state church, but to reform it from the inside.[[#_edn23|[xxiii]]]
One of those affected by the Réveil was Jan Willem Vijgeboom. As early as 1816, he was writing against the church organizational structure.[[#_edn24|[xxiv]]] In 1820, he wrote another brochure against hymns and three years later led some of the people under him to secede and start the "Restored Church of Christ" and to abandon hymns and go to use of psalms only.[[#_edn25|[xxv]]] In 1824, he plead to the king for freedom of worship, since the 1814 Constitution guaranteed freedom of religion and all religious faiths could worship in public.[[#_edn26|[xxvi]]] The issues Vijgeboom cited were: (a) use of hymns as Dort only allowed the use of Psalms, (b) admitting non-reformed church members to Lord's Supper, and (c) about the four questions asked before communion as questions altered to undermine the authority of the Bible.[[#_edn27|[xxvii]]] The government responded by invoking Articles 291, 292, and 294 of the Napoleonic laws against them. These laws restricted how many people could gather, and if they violated, the range that fines could be assessed against them.[[#_edn28|[xxviii]]]
In 1824, Isaac da Costa (formerly Jewish, baptized in 1822) started practicing family worship.[[#_edn29|[xxix]]] By 1826, this had become Sunday night worship open to everyone and where major persons in the coming secession like H.P. Scholte and Anthony Brumelkamp attended.[[#_edn30|[xxx]]] Scholte, Brummelkamp, Albutus Christaan Van Raalte, Luois Bähler, Goerge Fracs Gazelle Meerburg, and Simon van Velzen met here and actually started their own group. Of this group, everyone except Luois Bähler was involved in the secession.[[#_edn31|[xxxi]]]
Henrik de Cock became minister in 1825, but it was not until 1831 that he became aware of Calvin's Institutes and the Canons of Dordrecht (Dort).[[#_edn32|[xxxii]]] After becoming aware of them and reading them, his sermons on them and drawn from orthodox Calvinism, drew crowds to the rural church in Ulrum.[[#_edn33|[xxxiii]]] In 1833, he published a brochure in defense of attacks by two colleagues that confession lists were old-fashioned and did not put Scripture first.[[#_edn34|[xxxiv]]] When de Cock baptized members from another congregation who came, among others, he was brought before the Classics, an oversight body of the church, and with no opportunity to rebut the accusations and was forbidden to preach.[[#_edn35|[xxxv]]]
When Scholte was forbidden to preach instead of de Cock (de Cock had invited him, but since de Cock was suspended, Scholte's coming to preach was violating church laws) and those believers that gathered were fined, the day after Scholte headed back to his congregation, on Oct. 13, 1833 de Cock told the Concillary that he planned to secede.[[#_edn36|[xxxvi]]] The Act of Secession that was written up which had three major points. The first was the near absence of church discipline as per Article 29 of Dordrecht. The next was that they had asked for judgment based on the Bible, but were rejected and therefore boards did not prove any heresies.[[#_edn37|[xxxvii]]] The third was that Scholte was forbidden to speak the Word, and believers who gathered were fined.[[#_edn38|[xxxviii]]] The Act of Secession was given to all secular and religious people in the various hierarchies and made known publically.[[#_edn39|[xxxix]]]
The state Church appealed to the government for help. Again, the government then housed troops in homes of secessionists.[[#_edn40|[xl]]] De Cock's home was turned into a command centre.[[#_edn41|[xli]]] However, by staying in the homes of the secessionists, who were from the lower class, it produced extreme hardship on these families to have to provide for the soldiers and the occasional raping done by the soldiers.[[#_edn42|[xlii]]] Many of the ministers (e.g. Van Raalte, Brummelkamp) also seceded and were deposed.[[#_edn43|[xliii]]] Though by 1837 quartering of soldiers was stopped, in 1839 no seceders jailed, and in 1840, soldiers stopped breaking up their meetings, famine in 1840 and persecution forced many to migrate to the United States (e.g. Scholte, Van Raalte).[[#_edn44|[xliv]]] The seceders in the Netherlands also faced economic boycotts, social ostracism (continued after 1840), and job blacklisting.[[#_edn45|[xlv]]] Many others opposed that part of the Réveil but still in the church. They also became disunited amongst themselves over baptism, church order, and clerical garment (use traditional clerical garments or abandon them).[[#_edn46|[xlvi]]] However, those like da Costa, still inside the state church, mourned the persecution and had a spiritual bond with the seceders and stayed in connection with them.[[#_edn47|[xlvii]]]
By the mid-1860s, the state church had continued to grow in number of modernists. The modernists believed that the Bible was a human book with expression of human faith, did critical biblical inquiry, and compared the gospels to folklore.[[#_edn48|[xlviii]]] In 1866, three ministers arranged that on Easter they stated there was no bodily resurrection of Christ.[[#_edn49|[xlix]]]
In the midst of this, in 1864, a "Confessional Union" was set up to reestablish confessional literature and to establish "gospel stations" in the churches where modernist ministers preached, as well as freedom of the church from the state.[[#_edn50|[l]]] In 1867 elections for deacons, elders, and the calling of preachers once again became congregational right. Many congregations, using electoral college voting, elected orthodox deacons, elders, and preachers instead of modernist ones.[[#_edn51|[li]]] However, in 1884, the church council of Amsterdam (one minister was Abraham Kuyper), refused to let public confession of modernist students who were candidates for confirmation. This meant that they could not become a member of the congregation. After appeals within the church boards, the church council lost, and those in the church council against liberal ministers were deposed.[[#_edn52|[lii]]] The result was the Doleantie (from dolerand, or regretfully) where people from the state church separated from their former congregation and established a new congregation in expression of their grief. But, they still stated they were under the state church, but not the boards.[[#_edn53|[liii]]]
A prominent, but divisive figure in the Doleantie was Abraham Kuyper, a minister who was also involved in politics. As one who was eventually deposed, he stated that if confessions were not taken seriously, cannot be a church.[[#_edn54|[liv]]] Thus when orthodox Reformed members like Phillipus Hoedemaker stayed within the state church, Kuyper was saddened that they did not break away.[[#_edn55|[lv]]] Kuyper, eventually, however, was one of the ministers that helped the two seceded churches to unite in 1892 to form the Reformed Church in the Netherlands.[[#_edn56|[lvi]]]
Philippus Hoedemaker originally supported Kuyper, but after Kuyper's secession, he viewed their leaving the state church as an easy way out. He continued to focus on reforming the state church from within. Ironically, his ideas for reforming the church from within were used, but in the 1900s.[[#_edn57|[lvii]]]
Prussian Union Church
The union of the Reformed and Lutheran churches first began in the 1700’s with Frederick William I. The ruling house was Calvinist and Calvinist Pietists were the instructors of the royal children.[[#_edn58|[lviii]]] Frederick William I’s teacher was a French Huguenot named Philippe Rebeur who proposed the question of whether Frederick was a part of the elect. This caused Frederick so much internal torment that he forbade the teaching of Calvinist predestination to his children. He chose parts of Lutheranism and Calvinism to create his own brand of Lutheranism. He was a very “religious” man who believed that he would have to give an account to God for every action he performed and this led to him taking personal ownership of the government but he never became a tyrant.[[#_edn59|[lix]]] However, this merger of doctrines was more of a personal choice of Frederick William I and his successors up to Frederick William III. They did not try to force other Prussians to believe as they did.[[#_edn60|[lx]]] Since the reign of Frederick the Great, there had been religious freedom in Prussia. Prussian officials in the late 1700’s wanted to guard and maintain the autonomy and doctrinal orthodoxy of the confessional communities. In spite of his religious background as a Calvinist, Frederick the Great had been impartial to the various confessions in his realm. In 1781, when there was a conflict over a new type of hymnal he declared that, “anyone can believe what he wants, as long as he is honest…but the priests must not forget tolerance, for they will be forbidden any persecution.” On July 9, 1788, Frederick William II issued the “Edict of Religion” which declared that “the three main confessions of the Christian religion” were protected by the king. Yet there was no governmental provision allowing the government to interfere in church affairs. [[#_edn61|[lxi]]] Even the “General Code” of 1794 gave everyone the ability to act in “freedom of conscience”.[[#_edn62|[lxii]]] Religious tolerance was the order of the day until the reign of Frederick William III.
When Frederick William III assumed the throne, he worked swiftly to create a centralized governmental power. He also tried to “rebuild” Prussia into a respected nation again since the Napoleonic Wars had done much to reduce Prussian dominance in the region.[[#_edn63|[lxiii]]] He created a Permanent Ministerial Conference, a ministry of education, and even specific ministries, which would be for specific purposes and not divided by regions. Therefore, he worked to unify Prussia.[[#_edn64|[lxiv]]] In the midst of these reforms of unification, he tried to create a unified and cohesive religious body, which would be the mark by which Prussia would be seen as great, and the rest of Europe would respect them. As mentioned earlier, the ruling family was Calvinist with some Lutheran flavors. The majority of their subjects were Lutheran but the Napoleonic Wars had succeeded in bringing more Calvinists under Prussian authority.[[#_edn65|[lxv]]] On September 27, 1817, he ordered the Lutheran and Reformed (Calvinist) denominations to merge into one united protestant church. He viewed the two denominations as having no major differences and so it would be easy for them to merge.[[#_edn66|[lxvi]]] With this move, he strengthened the bond between church and state. He even had a new liturgy developed of which he was the primary author. It contained “scripts for every kind of service and comprehensive instructions about the disposition of altars, clerical dress, and the use of images and crucifixes inside churches.”[[#_edn67|[lxvii]]] The founding and enforcing of this new union occupied a large amount of time and political energy from 1815-1840. While developing economic and social reforms, Frederick William III played only a supporting role to these while his primary focus was his church merger.
By May 1825, of the 7,782 Protestant churches in Prussia, 5,343 had joined the union and were using the new liturgy.[[#_edn68|[lxviii]]] However, others refused to join since they viewed the merger as a threat to their religious heritage and theology. This group was primarily Lutherans. There had already been a series of divisions in the Lutheran Church over the embracing of Enlightenment ideas of Christianity being a “natural religion”.[[#_edn69|[lxix]]] As debates arose over the deity of Jesus Christ and other doctrines, the old doctrinal quarrels between the Lutherans and the Reformed Church were not as important. These quarrels intensified with the merger since the king commanded that clergy did not have to believe the tenants of the primary Confessions of both denominations in order to be ordained. Therefore, it was possible for clergy who did not believe the foundational tenants of the deity of Jesus, Jesus being the only way to salvation, salvation through faith alone, etc. to be leading congregations.
The Lutherans who were the most vehemently opposed to such reforms were later labeled the “Old Lutherans”. This group fought so viciously against the reforms and these issues. Out of the “Old Lutheran” camp, political groups began to sprout up all over Prussia and these strove to take the debates out of the universities and bring them to the public. They even strove to get the government to repress rival groups, labeling them as troublemakers. The government labeled those who refused to join the Union Church as dissenters and strove to repress them. They arrested clergy who refused to join as well as those political parties who did not approve of governmental initiatives. However, the freedom of religion laws, enacted by previous monarchs, stood in the way of full domination by the Crown. Therefore, the government arrested these people and held them on trumped up charges of disturbing the peace and sedition against the Crown. These actions just infuriated the king’s opponents even more and made things worse.[[#_edn70|[lxx]]]
By 1840, Prussian Lutherans were leaving Prussia to emigrate to Australia and the United States in order to escape the persecution that was taking place. The government tried to stop this exodus by creating laws by which those leaving had to have written permission to settle in their territory. When it obtained this, the government tried to place limits on how much money was needed to travel, thus keeping large quantities of the poor in Prussia.[[#_edn71|[lxxi]]] Still people fled the country by any means necessary. It was some of these “refugees” who created the Missouri and Buffalo synods in the United States.
When Frederick William IV assumed power after his father, his subjects rejoiced, thinking that he would bring in a new era. He had an affinity for Romantic literature (especially the medieval fantasies of Fouqué), architecture, and overabundant emotionalism.[[#_edn72|[lxxii]]] He also possessed a distain for constitutions, revolution, parliaments, and absolutism. He desired a new type of Christian State, which was organized on an “organic, corporative basis”.[[#_edn73|[lxxiii]]] He reinstated officials removed from their posts under his father’s reign. He even inducted the Brothers Grimm into the Prussian Academy of Sciences. These acts seemed to reveal him as a liberal and not a Pietist like his father. Yet when he gave speeches, they were longwinded with little political content and were more like sermons.[[#_edn74|[lxxiv]]] He believed that he possessed the throne due to the grace of God and even believed that God had given him supernatural powers that “put him intellectually and spiritually far above anyone else, even the highest official and closest confidant.”[[#_edn75|[lxxv]]] Therefore, when he had to make decisive decisions, he was inactive since he believed God would make the decisions for him. One of his first acts was to reinstate Catholic bishops removed from their posts by previous monarchs. Then, he stated that the Catholics and Protestants should unite and become one again.[[#_edn76|[lxxvi]]] He also stated that the union of the Lutheran and Reformed Churches was not doctrinal but administrative.[[#_edn77|[lxxvii]]] It appears that he moved away from the doctrinal emphasis of his father and focused primarily on the administration of the Prussian Union Church. He promised that Lutherans would no longer be persecuted but there was no concession of tolerance until 1846.[[#_edn78|[lxxviii]]]
In the process of these further reforms, his opponents began to push for constitutional reform. The people demanded a constitution for Prussia. At first, he refused. He did not want a piece of paper to get between him and the “divine right” of monarchy. He viewed a constitution as related to the French Revolution, which he vehemently hated. Pamphlets started printing pamphlets calling for further participation of the people in government affairs. One such publisher, a man named Johann Jacoby, received a sentence of two and a half years in jail for printing that the people’s participation was not a favor given to them by leaders, but a right they naturally possessed. He appealed his sentence and the Chamber Court acquitted him. These political pressures grew because of economic struggles made harsher by a series of bad harvests. The economic crisis shook Prussia violently and the people revolted. Frederick William IV was forced to give concessions as the result of the riot, which took place on March 1848.[[#_edn79|[lxxix]]] These concessions include lifting censorship, reconvening the United Diet, and introducing modern constitutional institutions.[[#_edn80|[lxxx]]]
These reforms led to people being able to have an active role in church affairs. The Union Church of Prussia remained the state church long after the reign of Frederick William IV. In 1884, a “Reformed Alliance” was created to preserve Reformed heritage.[[#_edn81|[lxxxi]]] The Reformed Church persisted through the early 20th century and stood against the racist Christianity supported by the Nazi regime. The Reformed Alliance and the Union Evangelical[[#_edn82|[lxxxii]]] Church still exist today.
The Army of Salvation and the Christian Revival of General William Booth
The latter half of the ninetieth century saw the rise of industrialization and the expansion of economies to a level that had never before been imagined. England in particular was at the forefront of this great charge and advancement of industrialism. For the most part, the industrialization of nations created the backdrop for the continuation of the modern world and was the springboard for their march into postmodern history. Unfortunately along with that glory and progress, it brought great suffering and destitution to thousands upon thousands of wage laborers.
It was from these contexts that the Salvation Army had its roots. Inspired by the Methodist traditions and practices used by prominent Methodist theologians and preachers, along with some variance and tweaking[[#_edn83|[lxxxiii]]] the Salvation Army brought salvation of spirit to the working class and tried to revive them from the depths of sin. Through their diligence and hard work, the missionary work of the Salvationists eventually reached the people of England, and within less than a generation of Booth starting his work, had reached every inhabited continent in the world[[#_edn84|[lxxxiv]]].
The Army had its origins with William Booth and his wife Catharine. William and Catherine shaped their mission by “synthesizing” various aspects and methods of different revivalists whom they met throughout their lives. These even included a couple of American revivalists by the name of Charles Finney, James Caughey and Phoebe Palmer[[#_edn85|[lxxxv]]].
William Booth was not by any means a trained clergyman for the established church. He only had around six months of formal training. It is stated that he actually had an aversion to formal ministerial education and held the idea with suspicion. To supplement for his academic deficiencies, his wife Catherine spent much time informally training herself in religious doctrine and theology. As far as their actual ministerial approaches, they incorporated methods used by the American revivalists that were mentioned above. They viewed this idea as a methodology that was “scientific” and overall was considered the “American Method”. Confession of sins, penitent communion, mass preaching, mass “specific” prayer, and the training of converts to win others were some of the means the Booths mobilized the beginnings of their Army[[#_edn86|[lxxxvi]]].
The theology of the eventual Salvation Army was that of a Wesleyan approach. One monograph mentioned that it was a medium between Calvinist predestination and 19th century transcendentalism and “free thought”[[#_edn87|[lxxxvii]]]. To the Booths, idea of Calvinist predestination theology was inconceivable and “abhorrent”[[#_edn88|[lxxxviii]]]. Their Wesleyan theology, at least in part, was that of “instantaneous deliverance. This was the idea that deliverance occurred as soon as Christ was accepted by the person in question”[[#_edn89|[lxxxix]]]. Also they believed that salvation was free for all people and that one could be saved from sin. Along with absolution of sin, they specifically stated the “Trustworthiness of the Bible vehemently acknowledge the holy trinity[[#_edn90|[xc]]]. These are closely related to the primary tenets of the Salvation Army today[[#_edn91|[xci]]].
The idea of absolution of sin carried into an idea of clean spiritual living. When members of the mission that was to become the Salvation Army, they adopted values of this sort. As a result of being converted, the convert was then endowed with Purity and Power. This translated into an idea of whole sanctification[[#_edn92|[xcii]]]. This particular holiness was a part of the doctrines of the mission. Officially this doctrine along with several others was adopted in 1870 and became some of the fundamental institutions of the mission and later Army[[#_edn93|[xciii]]].
For the Booths and their project, the idea of holiness and the elimination of sin was a foundational element. A person is to want to be holy on their own free will. “A believer must first be convinced that sin is hateful and must desire holiness. The believer must then renounce evil and consecrate herself and all that she possesses to God, having faith that Christ’s blood cleanses her from all sin. The Booths believed that entire sanctification was an absolute necessity for a Christian life and the only assurance of heaven.”[[#_edn94|[xciv]]]
The Booths began their work once they moved to London. In particular, they established an urban mission that focused on saving souls of the working class of East London in particular. They primarily used rented halls to hold their meetings and perform their salvation work. There were several stations that sprang up over the first years of the mission’s life. The first significant station was Whitechapel. As Whitechapel rose, he received requests to form other stations in Bethnal Green, Limehouls, Poplar, and Canning town. It was said that Booth would be happy to do all of that as long as he had the facilities to do what he needed[[#_edn95|[xcv]]].
East London was of particular concern to the Booths and other evangelicals as far as their mission was concerned. People regarded East London as a “dangerously neglected mission field”. There is poverty that is described as intense. Women were forced into “shame and misery” and the children were growing up “without knowledge of their Maker.”[[#_edn96|[xcvi]]]
In general, the Booth’s preaching was done in rented halls and anywhere he could find or rent a space[[#_edn97|[xcvii]]]. Often in these halls it was not William Booth who preached but his wife Catharine, although not often in “East End”[[#_edn98|[xcviii]]]. If not only unique, she was quite popular. At that time it was considered scandalous for a woman to be preaching equal to men. For being “scandalous”, she did receive ridicule for her abilities, and there were those who questioned whether a mother, as Catherine was, should be attending to her duties instead[[#_edn99|[xcix]]].
The future general himself was also concerned with the continuance of his mission that he created. Slowly but surely, the mission became more self sufficient and then began to spread beyond its foundational boundaries, with much of the effort coming from the lay ministers. Booth’s mission also absorbed other missions around the area, but the primary fruits came from the lay leadership and their expanding reach[[#_edn100|[c]]]. Within for years, Booth is said to have had “140 weekly services and four thousand inquirers seeking salvation since 1865.”[[#_edn101|[ci]]] Unfortunately these numbers were not representative of the actual numbers that were becoming evangelized. These figures were only less than ten percent of those that attended. Nevertheless, Booth continued to expand his reach opening more mission station, having sermons preached in fields, even having some of his ministers preaching on excursion trains[[#_edn102|[cii]]]. Whether or not people were truly being saved, Booth always had trouble finding places that could accommodate those who were coming[[#_edn103|[ciii]]].
Unfortunately for all his gains, there was far more that he was losing. As far as his revivalism went, his mission did not accomplish much of what he actually wanted to do. Part of the reason for this is what Booth termed as heathenism. For the most part, the people that he was trying to reach did not want to be revived. For these people, if they could take advantage of generosity, they would. However, overall, they were not a unified class and they seemed to be fairly content in the situation that they were it[[#_edn104|[civ]]]. Booth still believed that in aggressive Christianity to stem the flood of “alien ideology” etc but revivalism in itself was not working to the degree Booth wanted it.
Booth was performing his mission work during the later part of the 19th century in England. The air of English imperialism and military structure was all around him, thanks to Queen Victoria. To keep with the times, so to speak, he reorganized his mission with a military structure between the years 1877-79[[#_edn105|[cv]]]. It was at this point that William Booth became General William Booth of the Salvation Army. One of the things that helped perpetuate the notion of military structure was his use of “Hallelujah Bands”[[#_edn106|[cvi]]] Later, officially an army; they instituted drills as a pastime and to a respectful degree were able to mix classes[[#_edn107|[cvii]]]. By 1879, General Booth’s restructuring was complete and his now officially termed “Salvation Army” had truly captured the spirit of British militarist support. With all of its military fervor, Booth’s army marched out to “invade” the slums of the city and spread around the world to deliver “muscular Christianity” in a metaphor truly exemplified by those who were part of the Army of Salvation[[#_edn108|[cviii]]].
General Booth was in an excellent position to see all the suffering and wretched conditions that were plaguing the working class Londoners. In 1890 he published a manifesto that illustrated the problems of the lower classes and tried to propose a solution to it. His manifesto is entitled In Darkest England and The Way Out. In this work he is taking on a much greater role as a social reformist rather than a mission evangelist. He does not abandon the Salvationist underpinnings but it has a more societal focus rather than revivalist.
The first thing he does is makes a comparison to Stanley’s “Darkest Africa” in relation to exploitations, class struggles, and the “innumerable adverse conditions which doom the dweller in Darkest England to eternal and immutable misery”[[#_edn109|[cix]]]. He provides what he calls “Ghastly Figures” which gives the number of people that are starving, very poor, homeless, etc[[#_edn110|[cx]]]. While everything looks lamentable, in his manifesto he lays out excellent guidelines, seven in particular, for which to combat this infectious problem. These he calls essential to success[[#_edn111|[cxi]]].
Through their modes and methods the Salvation Army reached thousands upon thousands of poor, destitute, miserable people living in indescribable conditions. For Booth, the conditions of industrialization had created a society that he felt needed to be dealt with. First he worked to save their souls, and then he worked to save their lives and conditions, while still maintaining Divine purpose. While the revival of souls from the depths of sin was not accomplished to the degree that Booth intended, the mission and later Army did bring many to God and Christ on an individual basis. The lasting influence of the Salvation Army’s work must not be understated, both then and now. Even today, for both social relief and soul salvation the Salvation Army is still marching to glory.
Conclusion
The first movement discussed is the Dutch Reformed Church. Beginning as a European wide agitation for increased personal relationship as well as a free church unhindered by state interference, multiple secessions within the state Reformed Church took place in the 19th century. Many of the 1834 secessionists emigrated to the US in the later 1840’s founding towns such as Sheboygan, Wisconsin. These series of reforms demonstrates the interplay of church reform and government action with or against the secessionists.
The second movement analyzed is the Prussian Union Church. Here, the political and governmental influences created a church by trying to combine two denominations, Calvinist Reformed and Lutheran. The church was under the thumb of the authoritarian powers. Even going as far as writing liturgy for the merged church, the Prussian Union Church is a prime example of state control over church doctrine.
The third movement of interest is the Salvation Army of General. William and Catherine Booth. This illustrates the kind of free evangelism and mission work that was arising in England. The Salvation Army showed the response by a few driven individuals who strove to improve the spiritual and social situation of those victimized by the industrial juggernaut and ignored by government and religious organizations.
By the use of these three examples, we can see the next evolution of church and state interaction. These interactions resulted in the development of new free denominations not hindered by state control. There is also a rise in revivalist methods in a spirit of unrestrained evangelism, like that of the Salvation Army, that preached to the lower class and those abandoned by the established organizations.
Notes
[[#_ednref|[i]]] Richard De Ridder. "The development of the mission order of the Christian Reformed Church" (Master's thesis, Hartford Seminary Foundation, 1956), 2.
[[#_ednref|[ii]]] De Ridder, 2.
[[#_ednref|[iii]]] De Ridder, 3.
[[#_ednref|[iv]]] Karel Blei, The Netherlands Reformed Church, 1571-2005. Translated by Allan J. Jannsen (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformed Church Press, 2006), 10.
[[#_ednref|[v]]] Eric Kampen, "The Secession from the Netherlands Reformed Church in 1834: An Internal Part of the Dutch Reveil" (Master's thesis, Regent College, 2004), 17.
[[#_ednref|[vi]]] Kampen, 18.
[[#_ednref|[vii]]] Kampen, 41. It is interesting to note, that the same discussion and points were being debated in the United States in the Reformed Churches in the 1820s. In response to the synod in 1822, it was stated discipline had been neglected (including excommunication), hopelessness of reformation, those that are orthodox are slandered, baptism of children of unbelievers who do not understand baptism, judicatories are made up of ignorant men, young clergy at General Synod 1820 advocated Armenianism, that Methodist preachers are allowed to preach, and that the general convention rejected a call to define and explain doctrine of Dutch Reformed. It also uses Heidelsburg Confession, especially Article 29 (true versus false church). Thus, ministers in Oct. 22, 1822 Mongomery Classis drew up this draft of secession to establish the True Reformed Dutch Church in the USA (H.V. Wyckoff, “A Brief history of the True Reformed Protestant Dutch Church,” Banner of Truth, September 1869. Microfilm.). It is interesting that all research the various authors regarding the secessions in the Netherlands, none have expressedly noted this. Thus, did the preachers in the United States communicate with those in the Netherlands? If so, what significance did this have on the secessions in the Netherlands? Further research is needed on this.
[[#_ednref|[viii]]] Blei, 31; De Ridder, 4.
[[#_ednref|[ix]]] De Ridder, 4-5.
[[#_ednref|[x]]] John W. Beardslee III. Reformed Dogmatics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965), 23-24.
[[#_ednref|[xi]]] Robert P. Sweirenga and Elton J. Bruins. Family Quarrels in the Dutch Reformed Churches in the 19th Century, no. 32 of The Historical Series of the Reformed Church in the America (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1999), 10.
[[#_ednref|[xii]]] Blei, 56; Sweirenga and Bruins, 1.
[[#_ednref|[xiii]]] Blei, 57.
[[#_ednref|[xiv]]] Sweirenga and Bruins,14. The word changing was from the articles of faith of the three Reformed confessional writings “agreed in everything with God’s Word” to “all the doctrines, that, in conformity with the Word of God, were contained in the said creed.” (Blei, 61; De Ridder, 7). Also, ministers had too promise by signing that, originally, they “will diligently teach and faithfully advocate” the doctrine to “the doctrine which, in agreement with God’s Holy Word, is contained in the accepted formulae of unity of the Netherlands Reformed Church (Blei, 62).” So the question became what does “in agreement with God’s Holy Word” mean? (Blei, 62). For continuation, see page 62-63 of The Netherlands Reformed Church, 1571-2005.
The Trinity is the doctrine of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The three are separate persons with different characteristics, yet one. The three, also act as one in what they think. The Westminister Confession outlines this. Also, see John 5:18, 16:14; 1 Corinthians 2:10f; Genesis 2:24; Mathew 28:19
[[#_ednref|[xv]]] Kampen, 21.
[[#_ednref|[xvi]]] Kampen, 36.
[[#_ednref|[xvii]]] Sweirenga and Bruins, 14.
[[#_ednref|[xviii]]] Kampen, 23.
[[#_ednref|[xix]]] Sweirenga and Bruins, 13.
[[#_ednref|[xx]]] Sweirenga and Bruins, 14.
[[#_ednref|[xxi]]] Sweirenga and Bruins, 16. De Ridder, 8.
[[#_ednref|[xxii]]] Kampen, 66.
[[#_ednref|[xxiii]]] Kampen, 67.
[[#_ednref|[xxiv]]] Kampen, 30.
[[#_ednref|[xxv]]] Kampen, 30.
[[#_ednref|[xxvi]]] Kampen, 30; Sweirenga and Bruins, 24.
[[#_ednref|[xxvii]]] Kapmen, 31-31, note 44 on page 30.
[[#_ednref|[xxviii]]] Kampen 31.
[[#_ednref|[xxix]]] Kampen, 41.
[[#_ednref|[xxx]]] Kampen, 41.
[[#_ednref|[xxxi]]] Kampen, 53-54.
[[#_ednref|[xxxii]]] Kampen, 56.
[[#_ednref|[xxxiii]]] Blei, 64.
[[#_ednref|[xxxiv]]] Kampen, 64-66. End note source name.
[[#_ednref|[xxxv]]] Kampen, 64-67. The new “boards” from highest to lowest were: synod of entire church, provincial, classical, and concillary or church council. (Blei, 57).
[[#_ednref|[xxxvi]]] Kampen, 79.
[[#_ednref|[xxxvii]]] Kampen, 80. See note seven also concerning concerns towards the U.S. Dutch Reformed Church. All major points by de Cock were iterated 12 years previously in the U.S.
[[#_ednref|[xxxviii]]] Kampen, 81.
[[#_ednref|[xxxix]]] Kampen, 81.
[[#_ednref|[xl]]] Kampen, 82.
[[#_ednref|[xli]]] Kampen, 82.
[[#_ednref|[xlii]]] Kampen, 82, 90.
[[#_ednref|[xliii]]] Kampen, 85-88.
[[#_ednref|[xliv]]] Sweirenga and Bruins, 26. On seven of the book, it has a table of the number emigrating. It peaked in 1847 with 3,223 of Afscheiding Kerk emigrating compared with 835 from Hervormde Kerke (state church). They established Sheboygan (WI), Holland and Zeeland (MI), Pella (IA), and South Holland (IL) (Sweirenga and Bruins, 6).
[[#_ednref|[xlv]]] Sweirenga and Bruins, 27.
[[#_ednref|[xlvi]]] Kampen, 95, 115 note 35; Sweirenga and Bruins, 27-30.
[[#_ednref|[xlvii]]] Kampen, 105-107.
[[#_ednref|[xlviii]]] Blei, 68.
[[#_ednref|[xlix]]] Blei, 69.
[[#_ednref|[l]]] Blei, 71.
[[#_ednref|[li]]] Blei, 71.
[[#_ednref|[lii]]] Blei, 77.
[[#_ednref|[liii]]] Blei, 73.
[[#_ednref|[liv]]] Blei, 72-73.
[[#_ednref|[lv]]] Blei, 77.
[[#_ednref|[lvi]]] Blei 75.
[[#_ednref|[lvii]]] Blei, 77-80, 90.
[[#_ednref|[lviii]]] Koch, H.W., A History of Prussia, (London: Longman Group Limited, 1978), 78.
[[#_ednref|[lix]]] Koch, 80. However, according to Fraser, David, Frederick The Great, (New York: Fromm International, 2001), 8, Frederick William I was a violent tempered man who was according to his son, “a terrible man but a just man”.
[[#_ednref|[lx]]] Koch, H.W., A History of Prussia, 82,
[[#_ednref|[lxi]]] This paragraph is based on Clark, Christopher, “Confessional Policy and the Limits of State Action: Frederick William III and the Prussian Church Union 1917-40, The Historical Journal, Col. 39, No. 4, (Dec., 1996), 995.
[[#_ednref|[lxii]]] Clark, 1002.
[[#_ednref|[lxiii]]] Britannica, “Lutheranism”.
[[#_ednref|[lxiv]]] Koch, 163-187.
[[#_ednref|[lxv]]] Britannica, “Lutheranism”.
[[#_ednref|[lxvi]]] Clark, 985.
[[#_ednref|[lxvii]]] Clark, 986.
[[#_ednref|[lxviii]]] Clark, 989.
[[#_ednref|[lxix]]] Britannica, “Lutheranism”.
[[#_ednref|[lxx]]] Clark, 989-1004.
[[#_ednref|[lxxi]]] Clark, 997-1000.
[[#_ednref|[lxxii]]] Barclay, David, “Frederick William IV, King of Prussia”, Encyclopedia of 1848 Revolutions, http://www.ohio.edu/chastain/dh/fred.htm.
[[#_ednref|[lxxiii]]] Barclay, “Frederick William IV”.
[[#_ednref|[lxxiv]]] Koch, 227.
[[#_ednref|[lxxv]]] Koch, 227-228.
[[#_ednref|[lxxvi]]] Koch, 228.
[[#_ednref|[lxxvii]]] Britannica, “Lutheranism”.
[[#_ednref|[lxxviii]]] Gerber , David A., “The Pathos of Exile: Old Lutheran Refugees in the United States and South Australia, Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Jul., 1984), 498-522.
[[#_ednref|[lxxix]]] This paragraph is based on Koch, 229-247.
[[#_ednref|[lxxx]]] Barclay, “Frederick William IV”.
[[#_ednref|[lxxxi]]] Stillwell, John Colin, “Reformed and Presbyterian Churches (Christianity)”, Encyclopedia Britannica, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/475062/Presbyterian-churches#.
[[#_ednref|[lxxxii]]] Stillwell, “Reformed and Presbyterian Churches”.
[[#_ednref|[lxxxiii]]] Walker, Pamela, Pulling the Devil’s Kingdom Down: The Salvation Army in Victorian Britain (University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles 2001) pg 44
[[#_ednref|[lxxxiv]]]Gassner, Karl Heinz, Salvation Army, in, The Encyclopedia of Christianity Vol 4 Fahlbusch, Lochman, and Mbiti eds., English ed. and trans., Geoffrey Bromiley (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Grand Rapids MI 2005) pg 831-832
[[#_ednref|[lxxxv]]] Murdoch, Norman H Origins of the Salvation Army, (University of Tenn, Knoxville, 1994) Pg xi, 1
[[#_ednref|[lxxxvi]]] Murdoch, Norman H Origins of the Salvation Army pg 1-2
[[#_ednref|[lxxxvii]]] Murdoch, Norman H Origins of the Salvation Army pg 2
[[#_ednref|[lxxxviii]]] Murdoch, Norman H Origins of the Salvation Army pg 2
[[#_ednref|[lxxxix]]] Hattersley, Roy, Blood and Fire: William and Catherine Booth and Their Salvation Army (Random House Inc, New York 1999) pg 20
[[#_ednref|[xc]]] Murdoch, Norman H Origins of the Salvation Army pg 2
[[#_ednref|[xci]]] Salvation Army: What We Believe http: www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn/www_usn_2.nsf/vw-dynamic-index/CE33D354A0544F368025732500314AF5?Opendocument (Accessed NOV 23 2009)
[[#_ednref|[xcii]]] Murdoch, Norman H Origins of the Salvation Army pg 2
[[#_ednref|[xciii]]] Walker, Pamela, Pulling the Devil’s Kingdom Down pg 53
[[#_ednref|[xciv]]] Walker, Pamela, Pulling the Devil’s Kingdom Down pg 54
[[#_ednref|[xcv]]] Murdoch, Norman H Origins of the Salvation Army pg 50
[[#_ednref|[xcvi]]] Walker, Pamela, Pulling the Devil’s Kingdom Down pg 96
[[#_ednref|[xcvii]]] Murdoch, Norman H Origins of the Salvation Army pg 50-51
[[#_ednref|[xcviii]]] Murdoch, Norman H Origins of the Salvation Army pg 56
[[#_ednref|[xcix]]] Hattersley, Roy, Blood and Fire pg146-148
[[#_ednref|[c]]] Murdoch, Norman H Origins of the Salvation Army pg 52
[[#_ednref|[ci]]] Murdoch, Norman H Origins of the Salvation Army pg 53
[[#_ednref|[cii]]] Murdoch, Norman H Origins of the Salvation Army pg 53
[[#_ednref|[ciii]]] Murdoch, Norman H Origins of the Salvation Army pg 55
[[#_ednref|[civ]]] Murdoch, Norman H Origins of the Salvation Army pg 77
[[#_ednref|[cv]]] Murdoch, Norman H Origins of the Salvation Army pg 88-89
[[#_ednref|[cvi]]] Murdoch, Norman H Origins of the Salvation Army pg 92
[[#_ednref|[cvii]]] Murdoch, Norman H Origins of the Salvation Army pg 103
[[#_ednref|[cviii]]] Murdoch, Norman H Origins of the Salvation Army pg 101-103
[[#_ednref|[cix]]] Booth, General, In Darkest England and the Way Out (Mccorquodale and Co., Limited, London) pg 12
[[#_ednref|[cx]]] Booth, General, In Darkest England pg 21
[[#_ednref|[cxi]]] Booth, General, In Darkest England pg 85-89
Annotated Bibliography
Barclay, David, “Frederick William IV, King of Prussia”. Encyclopedia Britannica,
http://www.ohio.edu/chastain/dh/fred.htm.
This article talks about the reign of King Frederick William IV and what he accomplished.
Beardslee III, John W. Reformed Dogmatics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1965.
This source helped solidify what the Reformed Doctrine was, so as to understand the essentials of Calvanism.
Blei, Karel. The Netherlands Reformed Church, 1571-2005. Translated by Allan J. Jannsen.
Grand Rapids, MI: Reformed Church Press, 2006.
The book has a thorough background of the major figures in the Réveil, the Synod of Dordrecht, and the secessions.
Booth, General, In Darkest England and the Way Out. McCorquodale and Co., Limited, London.
(No date of publication available).
This book is the very words of Gen Booth. In it he describes how to fix the outright destitution of London. Therefore, this was an important primary source.
Clark, Christopher, “Confessional Policy and the Limits of State Action: Frederick William III
and the Prussian Church Union 1917-40, The Historical Journal, Col. 39, No. 4, (Dec.,
1996), 985-1004.
This article talks about the events leading up to Frederick William III’s command for the merger of the Reformed and Lutheran Churches and how the Lutherans in particular responded to the merger. Also, it talks about how his reforms were not as far reaching and permanent as he had hoped since they caused more strife than unity.
De Ridder, Richard. "The development of the mission order of the Christian Reformed Church."
Master's thesis, Hartford Seminary Foundation, 1956.
Originally, thought the mission order of the CRC would be regarding the Netherlands church. However, has a historical review of the state church in the Netherlands from the 1500s to the 1834 split, headed by de Cock.
Fraser, David, Frederick The Great. New York: Fromm International, 2001.
This monograph discusses the life of Frederick the Great and how he carried on and expounded on the policies of his father, Frederick William I. Frederick the Great’s reign continued the move toward the complete merger of the Reformed and Lutheran Churches by Frederick William III and IV.
Gassner, Karl Heinz, Salvation Army, in, The Encyclopedia of Christianity Vol 4 Fahlbusch,
Lochman, and Mbiti eds., English ed. and trans., Geoffrey Bromiley. William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co. Grand Rapids MI 2005.
This gentleman provided the springboard to greater study and provided an excellent resource list.
Gerber , David A., “The Pathos of Exile: Old Lutheran Refugees in the United States and South
Australia, Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Jul., 1984), 498-522.
This article discusses the exile of the “Old Lutherans” from Prussia to the United States and South Australia. It talks about leaders among the exiled groups and reasons for exile.
Hattersley, Roy, Blood and Fire: William and Catherine Booth and Their Salvation Army.
Random House Inc, New York 1999.
This was a well written and easy to follow biography of the Salvation Army founder and his family. This gave background on their lives and beliefs.
Hillerbrand, Hans J., “Lutheranism”, Encyclopedia Britannica,
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/352073/Lutheranism/260046/Modernity#.
This article gives a broad analysis of Lutheranism and discusses Frederick William III’s melding of the Reformed and Lutheran Churches under the “Modernity” heading.
Kampen, Eric "The Secession from the Netherlands Reformed Church in 1834: An Internal Part
of the Dutch Reveil." Master's thesis, Regent College, 2004.
Details more in-depth the effect the Enlightenment had on the Reformed Church, as well the conventicles. Its focus on the 1834 secession, using various primary sources that were in Dutch helped gain an understanding of the reasons for the secession.
Lamberti, Marjorie, “Lutheran Orthodoxy and the Beginning of Conservative Party Organization
in Prussia”, Church History, Vol. 37, No. 4 (Dec., 1968), 439-453.
This article outlines how the Lutherans in Prussia formed into political groups in order to try to counteract the reforms headed by the government as well as doctrinal debates which were occurring in 19th century Prussia.
Murdoch, Norman H Origins of the Salvation Army. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 1994.
By far the most cited this author provided the best comprehensive history of the origins, methods, and structuring of the Salvation Army.
Salvation Army: What We Believe http: www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn/www_usn_2.nsf/vw-
dynamic-index/CE33D354A0544F368025732500314AF5?Opendocument
This was used to identify the primary tenets of the SA and to cross reference them with those that were used in their early period.
Scharlemann, Robert P.,“Friederich Schleiermacher”, Encyclopedia Britannica,
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/527577/Friedrich-Schleiermacher#.
This article discusses the German theologian Friederich Schleiermacher who promoted the religious changes that Frederick William II was enacting and later clashed with the monarchy because he saw the state interfering too much in church affairs.
Schenkel, Daniel, “The German Protestant Association” (1868) in Volume 3. Vormärz to
Prussian Dominance, 1815-1866,
http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cfm?document_id=457.
This excerpt outlines the liberal Protestants’ efforts to reconcile the extremes of rationalist humanism and religious revivalism as they tried to reform the Protestant church in a way that would fit their changing culture.
Stillwell, John Colin, “Reformed and Presbyterian Churches (Christianity)”, Encyclopedia
Britannica, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/475062/Presbyterian-churches#.
This article is a survey of the Reformed and Presbyterian movements in various parts of Europe.
Sweirenga, Robert P. and Elton J. Bruins. Family Quarrels in the Dutch Reformed Churches in
the 19th Century, no. 32 of The Historical Series of the Reformed Church in the America.
Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1999.
Details the governmental response to the state church’s plea for state help in represent the secessionists, as well as details about the schisms among the secessionists after the 1834 secession. Also, the book does a brief history starting around 1815 and King Willem I of Netherlands.
Walker, Pamela, Pulling the Devil’s Kingdom Down: The Salvation Army in Victorian Britain.
University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles 2001.
This book was decent for various details regarding some of the mission’s methods, but it was too focused to be of much use.
Wyckoff, H.V. “A Brief history of the True Reformed Protestant Dutch Church,” Banner of
Truth, September 1869. Microfilm.
Initially sought out regarding church in the Netherlands. However, the similarities of the reformation and act of secession in the United States 12 years before the 1834 secession in the Netherlands state church, though nothing was mentioned in the other sources made it noteworthy and maybe will inspire research as to what connections between ministers in the U.S. and the Netherlands had and what influence the 1822 secession from Montgomery Classis had on the 1834 secession.
Type in the content of your page here.